Thursday, October 29, 2015

Mitra’s SOLE – 10 reasons on why it is ‘not even wrong’

It
saddens me when learning methods are reduced to simplistic, ill-informed acronyms and practices.
SOLE is one such acronym, or as one teacher trainer called it a ‘pseudo-framework’. SOLE is not a method based on sound learning theory, it’s not
new and at worst a destructive force in education, doing, in my opinion, more harm than good. Mitra most recent pronuncement “knowledge is dead” is what the physicist Wolfgang Pauli described as “not
even wrong”. In other words, so wrong it is barely worth critical comment. But
here goes….

What is SOLE?

Self Organised Learning Environments (see here for method) are structured,
three-phase, learning sessions – question (5 minutes), investigation (40
minutes), review (10-20 minutes). It involves group work (groups of four), each
with access to a computer, students can move groups at any time and it’s OK to
share. There’s some advice on choosing questions that will spark curiosity. So
far, so good, but that’s about it.

1. Not new

What is not clear how this is a particularly new approach to
inquiry-based learning, other than the prescriptive nature of the groups and
computers. Even Socrates 2500 years ago would ask carefully chosen questions to
groups of young men in the agora, let them think, discuss, then come back with
a critique. Indeed, the Socratic method, when unpacked, is a good deal more
sophisticated than Mitra’s SOLE method, as it was based on uncovering
misconceptions and superficial knowledge. Since then there has been centuries
of teachers working with groups by answering questions. Socratic Circles and
seminars have been used for centuries. Question-led group work was also a
strong feature of Worker’s Education Societies and many other adult education
initiatives. In the early 1900s Kurt Koffka explored this area, then Kurt
Lewin in the 20s-40s, Morton Deutsch in the 40s-50s, David and Roger Johnson in
the 60s. Then we have the whole Vygotsky, Bandura, Murray, Tjosvold… I could go
on and on. On top of this is the simple fact that almost every teacher I’ve
ever known employs this or something similar in their teaching strategies (note the plural). It is quite simply old news.

2. Optimal groups

I’d take issue with Mitra’s optimal group size at ‘four’.
Research has been done on this. Indeed, I was involved in just such as study on
language learning (French), where the researcher tried various groups sizes,
measuring attainment. The optimal number was ‘three’ not ‘four’. There were
several reasons for this. First, a computer comfortably sits one in the middle
with one on either side. The fourth, when added, was often marginalised. Then,
in terms of social interaction, the good news was that they started speaking
French, not only to the screen but to each other (rare in traditional teaching)
but side to side in dialogue. More participants diluted the collective effort.
Mitra’s model is not researched and, in my opinion, not optimised. A more general problem
with this type of groupwork, as any teacher knows, is social-loafing, with one student
‘driving’ the computer, the others being more passive, even excluded.

3. Questions

The SOLE website is remarkably simplistic on what types of
questions are to be asked in the SOLE method. This is not a trivial issue. In
the recent Wired article, the question was “Why do dogs chase cats?”. As is so
often the case, it is not clear, how these questions relate to context –
curricula, teaching, level of existing knowledge and so on. Black and Wiliam
have written extensively on this subject with far more insight and many more
concrete suggestions on what constitutes good questions. Mitra’s suggestions
are basic, almost trite.

4. Knowledge is dead?

Most worrying of all is Mitra’s statement in the recent
Wired article, that “Knowledge is dead”.
Mitra has form here. He has said on various occasions that schools and teachers
are dead. He did, of course, backtrack as soon as he found that the
Hole-in-the-wall methods were failures without teacher support.

You don’t have to be a Hirsche or Willingham to see how
muddled Mitra’s views of knowledge, teaching and learning really are when he
pops out these platitudes. Critical skills need a body of knowledge to act
upon, if critical inquiry is to be fruitful. What is often ignored is the
danger of this in terms of social equality. A complete pendulum swing
away from knowledge to critical thinking is likely to led to increasing levels
of inequality, as the poor receive an inferior education while the wealthy
retain this more valuable mix of educational strategies. Far from aiding the
poor, Mitra may be doing untold damage.

Let me illustrate this using the
“Why do cats chase dogs?” example. It’s a reasonable question that requires a
complex answer, including some knowledge of evolution, genetics, artificial
breeding, selection and domestication. Do the children we see really understand
any of these concepts? Will they pick up these complex ideas without teacher
intervention?

5. Schools are obsolete!

As I said earlier, Mitra has form
here. Remember his “Schools are obsolete”statement. Far from being sited
in open places, HiWEL sites are now invariably in school compounds. By being in
the school it is difficult to do research that isolates the experience from the
school, difficult to disentangle the role of the school (teachers, books etc.)
and the hole-in-the-wall computers. Indeed, as HiWEL has explained, they
involve ‘teachers’ in their implementation and mediation, making it almost
impossible to isolate the causes of educational improvement. One could say,
with Arora, that this has become “self-defeating”. The ‘hole-in-the-wall’ has
become the ‘computer-in-the-school’. This is a subtle bait and switch - evangelise on
one premise, deliver on another.

6. Criticism

On this
idea of SOLE, hole-in-the-wall strategies, let’s look at the evidence. “What
we see is the idea of free learning going into free fall,” said Payal Arora.
When Arora came across these two ‘hole-in-the-wall’ sites (Almora and Hawalbagh
in northern India), she discovered not the positive tales of self-directed
learning but failure. One was vandalised and closed down within two months, the
other abandoned and, apparently, had been mostly used by boys to play games. A
real problem was sustainability, as no one seemed responsible for the
electricity and maintenance bills. My own research into a hole-in-the-wall
project uncovered the same story - empty holes in the wall, resentful teachers
and testimonies that claimed the whole project was a failure from start to
finish. People arrived at their school. knocked holes in their walls, inserted
computers and left. They felt violated. The computers rarely worked, as the DSL
line was often down, and when it did work, the larger boys dominated them,
playing games.

7. Little independent evidence

As Arora
(2010) points out, there is little real independent evidence, other than that
provided by HiWEL itself and one must always question research funded by those
who would benefit from a positive outcome. The lack of independent research on
the sites is astonishing, something noted by Mark Warschauer, one of the few
critics who have actually visited a site. Most of it comes from Mitra himself,
or those in his team, almost all from one Journal. Control groups were given
questionnaires at the start and end of the period, but those in the
experimental group were tested every month. The obvious problem here is the
polluting effect of effect the regular assessments. Indeed, as De Bruyckere et
al. (2015) say, there is ample research, from Reedier & Karpicke and others
on the positive effect of testing.

8. Not like with like

Arora
exposed a glaring weakness in the design of the experiment. The 75 days of
learning (with a mediator) was compared to the same period in the local school
but like was not being compared to like, so the comparison was meaningless. It
was not comparing the amount of time spent on the hole-in-the-wall material
with the same or similar amount of time in school.

9. Role of teachers

As HiWEL
makes extensive use of mediators (teachers), the real lesson of the hole in the
wall experiments is that teachers, or at least mediators, seem to be a
necessary condition for learning to combat exclusion, mediate learning and
avoid the vagaries of child-centred behaviour. Yet this is not what the TED
talks and hole-in-the-wall evangelism suggests. Another problem is that by
seeing teachers as ‘invasive’, such initiatives can antagonise teachers and
educators, leading to poor-support. I found this in my research in
Africa, where the teachers were resentful. Arora concludes are that these
experiments do not work when not linked to the local schools and that, far from
being self-directed, the children need mediation by adults. Arora goes further
and claims that disassociating learning from adult guidance can lead to uncritical
acceptance of bad content and bad learning habits.

10. Low level learning

Warschauer
(2003) is even more critical than Arora. He claims that “overall the project
was not very effective”, with low level learning and not challenging. In
addition, he found that some of the many problems were the fact that the
internet rarely functioned, no content was provided in Hindi, the only language
the children knew, and many parents thought that the paucity of relevant
content rendered it irrelevant and criticised the kiosks as distracting the
children from their homework. Sure they learned how to use menus, drag and drop
but most of the time they were “using paint programs or playing games”. This is
hardly surprising and seems to confirm the rather banal conclusion that when
you give kids shiny new things, they play with them.

The
danger with SOLE learning is the classroom is the illusion of deep learning.
Without formative feedback and guidance, the learners may well be thrashing about
to no great effect.

Conclusion

It is not clear that this is anything other than traditional
project or inquiry based teaching. The TED effect has given Mitra a celebrity
status but little independent research has been done on his work and when
researchers do look, they find a rather different story. It’s all too easy to tell a few
anecdotes, with some well-selected pictures of kids at a screen, even slum kids,
and present this as a polished, keynote narrative. Teachers need to be more
critical than to fall for this stuff. ‘I’m a Celebrity let me fix your education
system’ should not be a substitute for careful thinking, scrutiny, evidence and
critical analysis.

1 Comments:

Thank you for the nice critical assessment. I had similar suspicions and found your article very enlightening. As you rightly pointed out, we need independent research to confirm his findings. He certainly seems to have given a biased conclusion, which seems highly unrealistic. Without teacher moderation, SOLE working seems extremely unlikely.